Principles for Restructuring Synod

Restructuring The Synod – Principles to Follow

As the members of the LC-MS await the report of the President’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Structure and Governance, some Principles should guide our consideration of any proposals to change the Structure of the LC-MS.

– Christian A. Preus, Esq., Member of LC-MS Board of Directors from 1995 to 2007

The Principles that should guide any restructuring are as follows:

I. Keep the Good

1. First and foremost any changes must maintain and promote the fundamental reason for the existence of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod: to serve the Members of the Synod (that is: the Congregations and Pastors and other church Workers).

a. This fundamental purpose of the Synod is currently reflected in Article III of the Constitution which lists the 10 objectives of the Synod. These 10 objectives emphasize that the reason for the existence of the Synod is to strengthen, aid, encourage, and protect the Congregations and their Members and the Pastors and other professional church Workers.

b. This fundamental reason for the LC-MS existence is also stated in Bylaw 1.1.1 – “The Synod is organized to work in support of and on behalf of congregations to assist them in carrying out their ministries as they seek to serve our Lord Jesus Christ, the members of His Body, and the world which stands in need of the Word and the impact of His redeeming love.”

c. The Synod exists to serve its Members.

d. The Members of the Synod do not exist to promote, perpetuate, or serve the Synod.

> Any effort that departs from this fundamental principle should be rejected.

2. Throughout its history, the LC-MS has acted through its Congregations, recognizing the Biblical basis of each Congregation, and on that basis treated all Congregations equally.

a. This is reflected in Article V of the Constitution, throughout the Bylaws, and in countless Convention resolutions.

b. The number of members of individual Congregations has never been the focus of the Synod’s structure or actions.

c. Congregations are dedicated to service, not to power or authority.

> Any effort that departs from this fundamental principle and gives greater influence or rights to select Congregations (whether based upon their size or other factors) should be rejected.

II. Avoid the Bad

3. There should be no changes to the Constitution of the Synod.
1. Any difficulty in the structure of the Synod does not in any way flow from the Constitution.
2. The difficulties exist in ambiguous, confusing, overly restrictive, and contradictory Bylaws.
3. Any effort to change the Constitution would interject a cumbersome, difficult and potentially divisive goal.
4. Any effort to change the Constitution would depart from the stated objective: to simplify and clarify the structure of the Synod.

> Any effort to change the Constitution should be rejected.

4. Any changes to the Bylaws must be consistent with the first objective stated in Article III of the Constitution, that is to “conserve and promote the unity of the true faith . . . .”

> Any effort to change Bylaws that would undermine this principle or promote, encourage, or make easier theological disunity in our confession and practice should be soundly rejected.

5. From its origin and continuously throughout its history, the LC-MS has been an instrument by which the Congregations can collectively carry out missions and the education of Pastors and other church Workers.

1. It is the Congregations that use the Synod to carry out their mission efforts and their education of Pastors.
2. Again, the Synod is an instrument of the Congregations.
3. The Congregations are not simply a resource for the Synod.

> Any Bylaw changes should maintain at the forefront the objective of the members of the Synod in these two vital areas.

> Any effort to re-categorize mission work and the education of Pastors as an effort of the Synod separate from the congregations should be rejected.

6. The officers, board members, and others carrying out their assigned tasks as determined by the Members of the Synod in convention and through the adoption of Bylaws should do so in an attitude of service to the Members.
1. Any and all efforts to further concentrate power (in the President or a select few officials) directly undermines the purpose of the Synod to serve the Congregations and individual Members.

> Any such efforts should be soundly rejected.

> Avoid all efforts to consolidate “power” or “authority,” especially in the office of the President.

III. Fix What’s Now Bad

7. Through time there has developed a “silo” environment in some parts of the Synod. Under this “silo” system some agencies operate and act as though they are a separate authority of their own, and not accountable ultimately to the Congregations of the Synod.

> Any Bylaw changes should promote a coordinated, orderly, and cooperative effort among the various agencies of the Synod.

> Any Bylaw changes that further promote the “silo” effect should be rejected.

> Instead, all efforts to promote and reestablish a coordinated, orderly, and cooperative environment, with full accountability to the Members of the Synod and the purposes and objectives of the Synod should be promoted.

8. “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40). “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities” (Romans 13:1).
1. As Lutherans, we recognize that “there is no authority except from God”“whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed,” “for rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad” (Romans 13:1-3). and that
2. We are blessed to live in a country that protects our freedom to practice our religion and operate a church organization.
3. Of course, as a Christian church organization we are obligated to follow the Word of God above the laws of man.
4. Fortunately, in our free country, we rarely (if ever) are forced to choose between the two.

> We should not abuse this freedom by disregarding or acting contrary to the laws of the land.

> Those current Bylaws that still do not completely conform to civil law should be changed.

> Any proposed Bylaw that does not conform with civil law should be soundly rejected.

IV. Make It Better

9. To the extent possible, changes should be made in the Bylaws to promote efficiency and excellence.

> Wherever waste and inefficiencies exist, efforts should be made to eliminate them.

> Wherever service to Members of the Synod is not excellent, efforts should be made to improve it.

10. As the Synodical structure has becomes more complicated and confusing, and the Bylaws more ambiguous and contradictory, the involvement, influence, and ultimate authority of the Congregations has diminished.
1. Any Bylaw change that diverts the focus away from the Synod’s service to the Congregations undermines the authority of the Congregations and the work the Congregations do collectively as a Synod.
   
2. Such changes instead increase the power or authority of officials.

> Any changes must be accompanied by simplification and clarification, not more bureaucracy and ambiguity.

> Any Bylaw change that is not simple and clear (so that no “interpretation” is needed, regardless of the intent or purpose) should be rejected until it is made simple and clear.

Kieschnick Apologizes

In a statement dated June 6, 2008 President Kieschnick has offered an apology for calling those who signed “That They May Be One” (TTMBO) “divisive and schismatic” in a May 30, 2003 memo. TTMBO was signed by over 600 members of synod and over 1100 lay people from member congregations. TTMBO was written by members of the Northern Illinois Confessional Lutherans (NICL) in response to the participation of a district president in a joint worship service that included many non-Christians.

The members of NICL had been repeatedly requesting a meeting with President Kieschnick for almost five years before one was finally arranged by the new district president Rev. Dan Gilbert. In the meeting President Kieschnick offered his apology for his offensive statement and also apologized for taking almost five years to agree to a meeting. Part of the joint statement offered from the meeting says:

"Upon this realization, along with hearing the assurances of the NICL pastors that their document was meant only for discussion and not for an expression of and requirement for fellowship, President Kieschnick expressed his regret that he did not meet or talk personally with the authors of the document prior to his May 30, 2003 memo. He also noted that doing so could possibly have spared everyone a lot of grief. Then he said simply, "I apologize for that." Immediately one of the NICL pastors replied, "We appreciate that, and we forgive you," and the other NICL pastors expressed their agreement with this statement of forgiveness."

The joint statement goes on to assert two points of agreement:

1. Specifically, in light of the explanation articulated in this joint statement, President Kieschnick communicates to the Synod his understanding that the act of signing TTMBO did not in and of itself render a signer "divisive and schismatic," and regrets the misunderstanding that resulted from his memo of May 30, 2003.

2. Also in light of the explanation articulated in this joint report, NICL reiterates to the Synod its understanding that members of the Synod need not sign TTMBO in order to continue to be in fellowship with those who did, and regrets the confusion resulting from the wording in the document that some interpreted to mean otherwise.

We rejoice in the fact that President Kieschnick has retracted and apologized for his earlier condemnations of the signers of TTMBO and that he has been offered and received forgiveness for his statement. We also agree with him that had he spoke to authors in the first place that it “could possibly have spared everyone a lot of grief.”

This past summer Rev. James Rogers, a leader in “Jesus First” sent out a letter to all the convention delegates listing the names of 19 individuals who were running for office that had signed TTMBO and repeating the false ‘divisive and schismatic” charge against them. He used this as the basis of encouraging delegates not to vote for the signers. We hope Rev. Rogers will follow the lead of President Kieschnick and publicly repent of his actions against these fine people that were libeled by his actions.

Finally, all we can do is say “Amen” to the joint statement’s closing paragraph:

"We the undersigned give thanks to God for the true unity of the Church, which comes from Him alone through the Word and not from our own efforts. We also encourage all within this Synod we love to continue to discuss with each other, fraternally and collegially, on the basis of Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, matters of doctrine and practice and not to do so only in printed documents but also in face to face discussions.

Psalm 133:1 says, "Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!" To God alone be the glory!"

Equal Representation?

Governance in the way of the Law or the Gospel?

(or, Does Size Matter?)

As a Synod, we have the freedom to organize our polity and govern ourselves in the manner we see best. There is no biblically-mandated structure or organizational design for the church (BTP* #5). This is nothing new, and our Synod has changed various points of governance in the past. For example, not too many years ago our dispute resolution process was changed from an “adjudication model” to a “reconciliation model.” This change, it seems to me, was a change from basing our governance and polity from being based in the way of the Law (adjudication) to being based in the way of the Gospel (reconciliation). Whether you think this was a wise change or not is fair game for debate. Yet our Synod was making a bold statement with this change, stating that it was our desire to put ourselves under the Gospel – not just as individual Christians, or congregations, but as a church body.

However, there is an idea that is now being put forward by some that would go against this new direction and desire of our Synod. Some think that larger congregations and districts should be entitled to greater representation than smaller congregations and districts. This would mean that larger congregations should have more votes and more influence in our Synod than smaller congregations. How far reaching this greater influence would be is not yet known. Would it be only at Synodical conventions? District conventions? Boards and Committees? Regardless, the question we need to ask is this: is this change in the way of the Law or in the way of the Gospel? Is this a churchly way of governance, or a worldly way of governance? The answer is clear: it is in the way of the world and the Law, for it is a model based upon rights and influence, and those are not of the church and the Gospel.

Historically, our Synod has believed, taught, and confessed that each congregation is the church, and fully the church (BTP #12). Smaller congregations are not less church than larger congregations, for in both Christ is present with His gifts of forgiveness, life, and salvation, and “Where Christ is, there is His church” (BTP #6). This model sees each congregation not on the basis of size or numbers or income or any other such measures (which are of the Law), but sees each congregation as the place where the gifts of Christ are given (which is of the Gospel). Therefore, each congregation has been given equal representation, because each is equally church, none “worth” more or less than another.

Should this change? Should we move to a model of representation based upon the Law rather than the Gospel? Historically, the answer is no. Based upon other recent changes to our governance, the answer is no. And to move in this direction would not be a helpful change to the evangelical unity and focus of our Synod. One also must wonder how great the temptation would be to inflate and manipulate the numbers to help ones cause? The political machinations of our Synod could lead in this direction too, further damaging and dividing us. No, let us value one another not on the basis of our size but on the basis of Christ, who is present creating faith and giving life in all our congregations. Where He chooses to grant more growth and where He chooses to grant less should not be the criteria of “who gets more votes.” Rather, let us walk forward together, for after all, isn’t that what a “synod” is for?

Rev. James Douthwaite

Vienna, VA

* The abbreviation “BTP” refers to one of the “Basic Theological Principles” outlined in the Congregation-Synod-Church document and on the basis of which feedback was requested. You need not read these to understand the article.

Freeing the Synod for Mission

It is clear to everyone that the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod is not structured in the most efficient way to carry out its mission of faithfully proclaiming the forgiveness of sins in Christ Jesus to the world. We applaud those who call for a restructuring in order to improve our ability to proclaim the Gospel. We were clearly told at the 2007 convention that the structure of our synod is hindering the financial ability of our synod to meet its goals. The administration of synod after taking parts of three days of the convention to push for it has decided that having a special convention in 2009 would be hasty. We agree. We do wish it had been thought through before wasting so much convention time on the issue. We stand ready to support any significant restructuring that places our synod in a better financial position to faithfully proclaim the Gospel. We trust that the call for restructure to improve the finances is the only agenda and will not be used as cover to change our doctrine and practice.

We do not know what will be recommended. A number of ideas have been floated. We believe that there is one idea that has been floated that should be rejected out of hand. That is the non productive idea of “Taxing.” The proponents have not called it taxing but that is what it is. The basic idea is that any Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS) associated entity would have to pay a portion of its budget to LCMS Inc. for the privilege of the association. The LWML, LLL, the seminaries and colleges, local human care agencies, CPH, etc., yes, and perhaps even the local congregation would all have to pay. The idea is to take resources away from organizations that already proclaim the Gospel and give it to LCMS Inc. so they can proclaim the Gospel. That is what we believe to be a non productive recommendation. We believe that dollar for dollar these organizations are more effective in proclaiming the Gospel then LCMS Inc.

We hope careful attention will be given to our district structure. The vast majority of money sent by congregations for “missions” never gets past the district coffers. Is our district structure with all of the professional and auxiliary staff the best stewardship of the offerings that Grandma Schmidt faithfully places in her envelope every week? Is keeping some our most talented people in bureaucratic positions best for the proclamation of the Gospel? Perhaps the answer is yes. If the next synodical convention wants to do something serious about the financial structure of synod it should look first at its burdensome bureaucracy before considering taxing the people and organizations that are being faithful in carrying out the work of the Gospel.

Rev. Roger Gallup

River Grove, IL

It's Getting Quiet

If one looks at mission work outside the primary venue of altar and pulpit, the LCMS should be very concerned that two of its most effective, far-reaching missionary voices have been silenced over the past six years.

For years, Rev. Wallace Schulz served as a preacher for Lutheran Hour Ministries (LHM), frequently featured on The Lutheran Hour radio broadcast and heard in personal appearances all over the country. In his spare time, he produced Good News magazine, an excellent publication that still teaches the Christian faith in depth to people around the world.

Schulz is no longer on the radio. Elected 2^nd Vice President of the LCMS, he had the unwelcome duty of presiding over the dispute resolution case involving Dr. David Benke’s participation in the “Yankee Stadium” syncretistic service. After meticulous investigation, Schulz found Benke guilty of syncretism. President Kieschnick, however, called for a review of Schulz’s decision. This review led to Benke’s exoneration, though the review panel was critical neither of Schulz’s procedures nor his Scriptural argument.

Schulz came under heavy fire; and shortly after Kieschnick’s call for review, Lutheran Hour Ministries removed Schulz with the explanation that his role in the case had harmed LHM. One of the best-known voices of the LCMS was gone from the radio. One might say that it would have been helpful for Dr. Kieschnick to intervene again at this point, voicing support for a synodical official who lost his employment for fulfilling his constitutional obligations.

Recently, Rev. Todd Wilken was removed from the airwaves as the show, Issues, Etc., was cancelled. Issues, the synod’s only nationally-syndicated show, reached across denominational barriers. It was respected for being strongly pro-life, tackling tough issues and being a show for the “thinking Christian,” regardless of denomination. It made the complex understandable. It was “Exhibit A” that doctrine and missions go hand in hand, that theology need not be dumbed down to appeal. No enterprise within the LCMS did more to refute the notion that Lutherans must compromise their doctrine to interact effectively with others.

Without warning or discussion, the show was cancelled for “financial and programmatic reasons,” and without the knowledge of the Board for Communication Services (BCS). Wilken was removed from his divine call. His producer, Jeff Schwarz, also went home unemployed. Financially, it seems, the show cost too much money. Programmatically, it’s been replaced with a show that doesn’t dwell “largely on Lutheran apologetics at a sophisticated level.” How unfortunate. How does one give an intelligent-yet-unsophisticated response to, say, stem-cell research? And is there a reason that Lutherans should not address these with a Lutheran apologetic [defense]? Lutherans have the advantage of a rigorous theology that allows us to speak to difficult issues, and sophisticated problems require sophisticated answers. That’s what Issues, Etc. did, to receptive ears across the nation.

Fans of the show have voiced their displeasure through blogs, a public demonstration, and an online petition that includes pleas from many non-Lutherans to restore it.

Given the concern and confusion of so many, wouldn’t this be a good time for Dr. Kieschnick to call this decision up for review?

But one doesn’t see that happening.

And our mission outreach to the world is that much quieter than it was before.

John Greenberg
Layman

Evaluation of Recent Statements

An Evaluation of Recent Resolution of the COP and

Statement of President Kieschnick

Regarding Issues etc.

The recent resolution of the Council of Presidents regarding the cancellation of Issues, Etc. has received a bit of attention. Most of it negative. Some of the primary criticisms seem to be that the Council of Presidents has added its support to the cancellation of Issues, Etc. and has allowed the President of the Synod to escape scrutiny for his role in this affair. A careful reading of the COP resolution, however, suggests that these and similar criticisms are not justified.

No doubt President Kieschnick will attempt to use the COP resolution and his own statements to exempt himself from any responsibility and attempt to persuade the Synod as a whole to forget about this issue. And perhaps it is fair to be frustrated with the COP for aiding him in his efforts to dodge another controversy that clearly involves him. But in defense of the COP, the resolution does not say what many are attributing to it, and in particular does not excuse the President or the decision to cancel Issues, Etc.

The COP begins with the acknowledgement that the cancellation of Issues, Etc, and the continuing controversy "is not the responsibility of the Council of Presidents." This statement is correct. And it is refreshing in light of the all-too-frequent actions of some in the Synod who fail to recognize the limitations of their responsibilities. The COP has been criticized in the past, rightly or wrongly, for exercising authority it did not have. It is indeed a positive sign to see the COP publicly state it will not involve itself in matters outside its responsibility. To those who may have wanted the COP to take a more active role in the matter, and perhaps actually state a formal position on the decision to cancel Issues, Etc., the COP has simply respectfully declined. Perhaps the COP could have done and said nothing. This might have been better, and more consistent with its acknowledgement that it has no authority over the matters. But in addressing the issues, at least the COP limited its statement to matters within its realm of responsibility, which concerns matters of the Fourth and Eighth Commandments. And in doing so, it did not point the finger at any one party. So the counsel provided by the COP includes those who may have violated the Eighth Commandment when publicly criticizing the author of a recent Wall Street Journal article on this matter.

Some seem to suggest that the COP is defending David Strand's decision to cancel Issues, Etc., when it states "We must regard with Christian charity and trust the judgment of our duly elected brothers and sisters in Christ on the BCS, along with its Executive Director, Mr. David Strand." Note carefully what is said here. The request is made to "trust the judgment" of the BCS and David Strand. No request is made to agree with the decision to cancel Issues, Etc. The COP has limited itself to asking members of the Synod to regard this decision with Christian charity, which should be done. When considering David Strand's past history with the LCMS there is reason to trust his judgment. During his many years as an employee of Synod he has generally stayed out of the controversies. That is not an easy task, given the positions he has held. Of course his past history of avoiding controversies does not mean he made the right decision when cancelling Issues, Etc. Notwithstanding his past judgment, his decision to cancel Issues, Etc. was obviously exceptionally unwise and counter-productive. It seems the COP is simply asking that a man who has generally exercised good judgment in the past be treated with Christian charity. Of course he should be treated with Christian charity and his judgment trusted, even though he had a serious lapse of judgment in this instance.

The COP also rightly states "The Synod has given the authority for oversight and implementation of KFUO and its programming decisions to the Board for Communication Services (BCS)." Here the COP correctly distinguishes between having authority and making good decisions. The COP speaks only to authority and respecting that authority under the Fourth Commandment. The COP has stayed out of evaluating the wisdom of the decision, other than expressing its regret regarding its timing. To attribute to the COP any evaluation of the wisdom of the decision to cancel Issues, Etc. reads into the resolution matters not stated.

Perhaps the COP resolution could be read as asking that the judgment of David Strand - and now the BCS, which has refused to correct Mr. Strand's blunder - should be trusted specifically with respect to the cancellation of Issues, Etc. The COP resolution is a bit ambiguous in its wording. But in light of the COP's acknowledgement that the cancellation of Issues, Etc. is not within its responsibility, it would be quite contradictory for the COP to take a position on this issue, particularly since the COP did not have all relevant information presented to it. Charity requires that the COP resolution not be read to make the COP hypocritical. Thus reading the COP resolution, ambiguous as it is, as supporting the decision to cancel Issues, Etc. is not correct.

What is most significant about the COP resolution is its very limited scope. In reality, it says virtually nothing about the decision to cancel Issues, Etc., other than that David Strand had the authority to make the decision, which he did, that this matter is under the authority of the BCS, which it is, and that the timing of the decision - during Holy week - was bad. Perhaps some would like the COP to acknowledge the obvious lack of wisdom in and divisive and counter-productive effect of the decision to cancel Issues, Etc. Perhaps others would like the COP to encourage the President to counsel for reconsideration of the decision to cancel Issues, Etc., which the President has the ability to do. The COP also could have requested the BCS and Board of Directors to exercise the authority they clearly have to reverse this decision, but chose not to do so. All of this simply illustrates the COP's acknowledgement of its limited authority, and complete lack of authority in this specific matter. Is it fair to criticize the COP for exercising authority it does not have, and then also criticize it for not exercising authority it does not have?

The statements of the President are a different story. When responding to a Wall Street Journal article, President Kieschnick stated that Issues, Etc. was cancelled only "after years of attempts to keep the program financially solvent." The minutes of the Board of Directors and the BCS over the past many years contain many references of financial problems throughout the Synod. Many of these financial problems have been very serious, and some have dealt specifically with KFUO AM and KFUO FM. But keeping Issues, Etc "financially solvent" or even identifying it as a financial problem is conspicuously absent from the minutes. The Board of Directors Minutes are quite detailed regarding financial matters. Thus the absence of any discussion of Issues, Etc. as a financial problem for KFUO AM is quite telling. Certainly there have been issues raised about the KFUO radio stations, both AM and FM, and many disputes and disagreements over how best to account for certain overhead attributed to KFUO AM. But the financial solvency of Issues, Etc. has not been raised as a concern. On the contrary, Issues, Etc. has always been universally recognized as an exceptionally successful program of evangelism and mission. The financial figures given by the President also do not justify a financial basis for the decision to cancel the Issues, Etc. program. Most of the data given is about KFUO AM generally, and not Issues, Etc.

Curious also is the President's statement that the "Listeners of 'Issues, Etc.' have had nine years and countless invitations and opportunities to support the program financially, and some have, but not nearly enough to offset the show’s deep, ongoing losses." Is an evangelism effort required to break even financially? Are the "listeners" in the mission field required to raise enough money to support the missionaries sent to them to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments? Is this now the standard used to evaluate the worth of a program and determine whether it will continue to be funded? There are many, many, many programs throughout the Synod that have for years operated on the basis of donations that are not sufficient to cover expenses. This is true throughout all denominations, and all non-profit organizations. Why is Issues, Etc. singled out for cancellation? Should we also cancel our ministry to all minority groups, the blind and deaf, and all foreign missions?

The President also proclaims that the decision was in no way political. Of course it is not possible to judge the President's motives in this matter. But would Mr. Strand have made this decision a year ago? Would the members of the BCS, as that board was constituted at the time, have permitted it? And if this decision had been made 4 years ago would the then Board of Directors have permitted it? The decision was made now because it was politically possible to do so. The members of the Board of Directors have changed. And with new members on the Board of Directors, new members were in turn appointed to the BCS, which in turn supervises Mr. Strand. It is also worth asking whether this decision would have been made by Mr. Strand if John Wohlrabe or Daniel Preus or Dean Wenthe had been elected President of the Synod during one of the past three conventions. Would this decision have been made if Al Barry or Robert Kuhn were President? Was this decision "political"? President Kieschnick says not. But certainly the decision to cancel Issues, Etc. was made possible as a result of a series of actions over the past several years.

The President states further that "the decision was made solely by Mr. Strand." However, the President could have counseled him against making such an unwise decision, and no doubt Mr. Stand would have followed such advice. The President also could have encouraged him to consult with the entire BCS before making his decision, instead of simply the BCS Chairman, and again Mr. Strand undoubtedly would have followed such advice. Mr. Strand also could have been encouraged to wait until after the conclusion of the recent KFUO fundraising before making the decision or to request the Board of Directors for assistance at its budget meeting only a couple of months away . Yes, technically, "the decision was made solely by Mr. Strand." But President Kieschnick could have prevented this decision, and prevented all the division and controversy that has followed, not to mention the loss of one of the Synod's most effective outreach programs.

Christian A. Preus

Member, LCMS Board of Directors 1995-2007

Many Questions, Many Answers

My short article entitled “On the firing of a Pastor” (posted below) has engendered over 100 responses. This renders the task of responding individually to each letter virtually impossible. At the same time it is quite apparent to me and to the editors of Consensus that the LCMS needs a continued discussion on this topic, for we in the LCMS are quite evidently seriously and often passionately divided on questions surrounding our understanding of the Office of the Ministry. A reading of the responses has suggested to me that at least four questions need to be addressed in our circles.

First: Are pastors who are called by districts or the synod actually called by God? While very few in our circles seriously question that a parish pastor has been called and placed by God into the ministry of his congregation, we are divided as to whether any workers not called by a specific congregation actually can be said to be in the Office of the Ministry. Some hold that the synod has the right to call missionaries, professors, campus ministers, chaplains and even talk shows hosts who teach the gospel, and that these hold the Office of the Ministry. Others believe that those men who have not been called by a specific congregation are not in the office of the ministry.

Second: Is the call to serve the synod a permanent call? Some believe that when the synod or a district calls a pastor to a position where the word is taught then that pastor has a permanent call just like a parish pastor and is entitled to know cause and expect due process to be followed if his call is terminated. Others believe that pastors called by the district or synod can be dismissed without cause or due process. (Clearly I hold to the former view although the latter seems to be the practice of our church judging by some of the responses I received.) Those who hold that pastors can be called by the districts or synod and who also hold that these men can be fired without any stated cause or without due process appear to be working with two contradictory criteria regarding the divine call and its permanency. Yet on what basis have we made these distinctions, that some calls are permanent and some are not? That some can be fired and some cannot? There are also those who hold that those men placed in such district and synodical positions are not called by God, and therefore no call is violated when they are fired.

Third: When may a pastor be fired even when cause is stated and due process followed? Many letters rightly pointed out that at the seminary a third reason for the termination of a pastor was often taught – that in addition to preaching false doctrine or leading a scandalous life, refusal or inability to perform the functions of the office is also a cause for termination. Yet how is such refusal or inability determined?

Many letters pointed out that certain calls have built in terminations to them such as calls to military chaplaincy during a war. Who determines what calls fall into this category? What criteria are employed when the decision is made that the call is terminated? Who makes the determination? Are there other types of calls like this? If so, how many?

And fourth: Are teachers called into the divinely established Office of the Ministry? Many in our circles believe that teachers and school administrators have divine calls into the ministry just as pastors enjoy and so should enjoy a permanent call just like a pastor. Others believe that the office of pastor is the only divinely established office in the church.

These are challenging questions which require continued discussion based on the Scriptures and the Confessions of the Church.

Klemet Preus

Glory of Christ Lutheran Church

Plymouth, MN